A christian's view of athiests...pile on the strawmen

[the_ignored]

This is a commentator on the "Atheism Analyzed" blog.  Yeah, a more objective blog you won't find anywhere that looks at atheism without prejudice.

Yeah, that was sarcasm...

For an example of the complete strawman bullshit they have of atheists:

Finally, this all appears to be driven by ego. The claim to intellectual and moral superiority, the denial that there is anything or Anyone outside of themselves to which they might owe allegiance, obediance or even existence... that's self-worship.

I guess this guy thinks that no atheist has ever uh, joined the army, police, or ever taken the pledge of allegiance which used to NOT have "god" in it.

So... if you can't beat them verbally and you can't knock their teeth down their throat, what's left? It sounds like they get to do whatever they want, as long as no 'controlling legal authority' catches them at it. In fact, sometimes it seems to me like their goal is to *become* the 'controlling legal authority'.

Sounds more like xianity to me when they claim that it's atheism that's the "moral VOID".  They reject any reason that any atheist I've heard give to be moral and claim that without "god" looking over their shoulder that there is no reason to be moral.


What does the host of that site have to say about this?

Stan said...

    Steven,
    Yes. So far, so good and there's more to come.

On an ironic note:  "Stan" has a link to Vox (rape apologist) Day on the right hand side.  It's ironic when one notes all the times that Stan talks about atheism being a "moral VOID".

[Captain Jack Harkness]

Well to be fair to this person, there's a lot of open atheists on YT/the Internet that actually fit that strawman pretty well.  Might they well be the vocal minority?  Yep.  Is it possible that it's unfair to judge someone solely by Internet activity?  Definitely.  However, if they honestly don't have an amazing atheist (not to be confused with a certain fat fuckstick) friend, how are they supposed to understand how the average atheist thinks?

So while you're complaining about this, what do you expect?  Not all conservatives are bad, but the ones on the Internet generally are pretty bad (or at least get quoted for said badness).  I just...don't think it's fair to bash on this too much if you realize WHY they're so...anti-atheist.

[Witchyjoshy]

I just...don't think it's fair to bash on this too much if you realize WHY they're so...anti-atheist.

Well, to be fair, we've gone after a few anti-theists who get things about as wrong as this guy gets atheism wrong, so we're unfair fairly.

...

What did I just type? @_X

[Captain Jack Harkness]

I just...don't think it's fair to bash on this too much if you realize WHY they're so...anti-atheist.

Well, to be fair, we've gone after a few anti-theists who get things about as wrong as this guy gets atheism wrong, so we're unfair fairly.

...

What did I just type? @_X

Haha.  Atheist fundies are the best because people will scream "This isn't fundy!" without understanding the site's mission.  Heaven forbid they read the FAQ on the mainpage.

Oh no.  I said Heaven.  COME AT ME, BROS!   (Kidding, kidding.)

[Askold]

Haha.  Atheist fundies are the best because people will scream "This isn't fundy!" without understanding the site's mission.  Heaven forbid they read the FAQ on the mainpage.

Oh no.  I said Heaven.  COME AT ME, BROS!   (Kidding, kidding.)

Yeah we have had some good laughs over rhem.

[Dakota Bob]

Atheists want to become the "controlling legal authority?" Damn it, how do these people find out my plans so easily?

[Sylvana]

Finally, this all appears to be driven by ego. The claim to intellectual and moral superiority, the denial that there is anything or Anyone outside of themselves to which they might owe allegiance, obediance or even existence... that's self-worship.

So... if you can't beat them verbally and you can't knock their teeth down their throat, what's left? It sounds like they get to do whatever they want, as long as no 'controlling legal authority' catches them at it. In fact, sometimes it seems to me like their goal is to *become* the 'controlling legal authority'.

In all fairness, ones ego and desire to rule is an innate aspect of humanity. Our hierarchical tribal structures promoted a desire to be the alpha of the group, while our egos give us a sense of self worth and ability. Without these aspects of our very nature we would be nothing.

As such, this self worship and need to become the controlling authority is found in any group and any individual. Religious people just like to think that these same desires come from an outside supernatural source instead of their own intrinsic human nature.

[lazerfrog]

A lot of these things read more like what someone would imagine themselves doing if they were an atheist more than what they've observed atheist people doing.

[Captain Jack Harkness]

Atheists want to become the "controlling legal authority?" Damn it, how do these people find out my plans so easily?

Dude!  You lack the tact.  You need to take um..shit.  Well, imagine a group that conspiracy theorists haven't made up (yet), and then adapt their level of secrecy/tact.

[Dakota Bob]

Atheists want to become the "controlling legal authority?" Damn it, how do these people find out my plans so easily?

Dude!  You lack the tact.  You need to take um..shit.  Well, imagine a group that conspiracy theorists haven't made up (yet), and then adapt their level of secrecy/tact.

The Intergalactic Otherkin Order of Fascists? They're pretty secret.

[Old Viking]

The small sample presented seems innocuous as these things go.

[Captain Jack Harkness]

Atheists want to become the "controlling legal authority?" Damn it, how do these people find out my plans so easily?

Dude!  You lack the tact.  You need to take um..shit.  Well, imagine a group that conspiracy theorists haven't made up (yet), and then adapt their level of secrecy/tact.

The Intergalactic Otherkin Order of Fascists? They're pretty secret.

You mean Xenu's minions?  Try again, dude.

[the_ignored]

Well to be fair to this person, there's a lot of open atheists on YT/the Internet that actually fit that strawman pretty well.  Might they well be the vocal minority?  Yep.  Is it possible that it's unfair to judge someone solely by Internet activity?  Definitely.  However, if they honestly don't have an amazing atheist (not to be confused with a certain fat fuckstick) friend, how are they supposed to understand how the average atheist thinks?

So while you're complaining about this, what do you expect?  Not all conservatives are bad, but the ones on the Internet generally are pretty bad (or at least get quoted for said badness).  I just...don't think it's fair to bash on this too much if you realize WHY they're so...anti-atheist.

In truth, had I not debated with the host of that site (it have links to the responses on his site), I'd be tempted to agree with you.  Thing is, during the debate Stan kept ignoring any points that I brought up. 

Example: 
--He brought up one Barna study that said that atheists contributed little in charities compared to xians, I posted links to three studies that showed differently.  Stan ignored those and kept harping on the "absolute stinginess" of atheists.

--He said that atheists, including me, are all pro-abortion (or less polite words to that effect if I remember), even though I had said that I was pro-life and gave a link to an atheist pro-life site.

Shit like that.  So, when a person keeps ignoring what you're saying and just goes on with his original arguments as if you've never said anything shows it  doesn't matter of the kind of atheist he runs into because he won't give up his strawman view of them.
--

[the_ignored]

A lot of these things read more like what someone would imagine themselves doing if they were an atheist more than what they've observed atheist people doing.

Whenever a theist says something about the "moral void" of atheism or that atheists don't have any reason/justification for being moral, as far as I can tell that means that they've disregarded any reason that any atheist may have to act moral (empathy, thinking of society/friends, family, etc) and will only accept as a justification for morality someone from one high to tell them how to act, that pretty much means that they've admitted that if it wasn't for their god belief, they would have no reason to act moral at all.

Edit As another example of how this guy thinks, read this.

Original quote is here:

After all, look at verse 46 where biblegod is commanding people to love even those who hate one…just how is his killing of babies and pregnant women of those people who allegedly hated him then an example of this “perfect” love?
Can you show (prove) that it was not done out of love? Or do you just presume that because to you it resembles human hate, it is therefore nessarily hate in the deity also? Does non-comprehension of the motives of a deity prove that the deity does not exist? Non-existence is what Atheism asserts, and needs to be proved.

Yeah, and in our "debate" this is the guy who goes totally off on me because he thinks that I am not "pro-life".  This total moral contradiction never sinks in, even when it's pointed out to them.

[ironbite]

Ahh the Pigeon's Playing Chess style of debate.

Ironbite-a classic move.